Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Roger Gale: Before we begin, given the weather, hon. Members may remove their jackets, or other such items of attire so as still to allow a sense of decorum. I cannot speak for my fellow Chairmen, but that ruling prevails while I am in the Chair. I have a few housekeeping announcements. All Members should ensure that mobile phones, pagers and BlackBerrys are turned off or switched to silent during Committee sittings. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. Adequate notice should be given of amendments if they are to be eligible for selection: for a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House the previous Thursday; and for a Thursday sitting, they must be tabled by the previous Monday. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairmen will not call manuscript or starred amendments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move,
That
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 30 June) meet
(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 30 June
(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 2 July;
(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 7 July;
(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 9 July;
(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 14 July;
(f) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 16 July;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 44 to 47; Schedule 5; Clauses 48 to 51; Schedule 6; Clauses 52 to 64; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 65 to 97; Schedule 7; Clauses 98 to 112; Schedules 8 and 9; Clauses 113 to 115; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clauses 116 to 144; Schedule 10; Clauses 145 and 146; Schedules 11 and 12; Clauses 147 and 148; Schedule 13; new Clauses relating to Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; Clause 1; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 2 to 39; Schedule 3; Clause 40; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 41 to 43; Schedule 4; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 149 to 179; Schedule 14; Clauses 180 to 188; new Clauses relating to Part 6; new Schedules relating to Part 6; Clauses 189 to 196; Schedule 15; Clauses 197 to 227; Schedule 16; Clauses 228; new Clauses relating to Part 7; new Schedules relating to Part 7; Clauses 229 to 243; Schedule 17; Clauses 244 to 271; Schedule 18; Clauses 272 to 289; new Clauses relating to Part 8; new Schedules relating to Part 8; Clauses 290 to 296; Schedule 19; Clauses 297 and 298; Schedule 20; Clauses 299 to 304; new Clauses relating to Part 9; new Schedules relating to Part 9; Clauses 305 to 309; Schedule 21; Clauses 310 to 315; Schedule 22; Clauses 316 to 319; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 16 July.
May I say, Mr. Gale, what I delight it is to serve under your stewardship on such an important Committee? The Bill has been long awaited by many, not only in this House, but in the other place, where it has progressed and been improved through several months of intense scrutiny. The Programming Sub-Committees debate on agreeing the way forward for scrutiny of the Bill reflected the collaborative approach that was adopted in the other place and that, I hope, will prevail in the Committee as we proceed with the Bill. We have tried strenuously to avoid the necessity of putting in knives and guillotines in order to have a free-flowing debate, and I think that we now have, in a much improved Bill, ample opportunity to get right to the core of what it is about.
I particularly welcome the agreed approach to getting to the meat of the Bill and to the planning, licensing and conservation aspects before proceeding to other matters. We also plan to reserve sufficient time towards the later part of our discussions in Committee to look in depth at coastal access. I hope and anticipate that the spirit of constructive engagement will continue throughout our deliberations.
I would like simply to reiterate what the Bill is about: our relationship with the seas and the coastal environment. That is critical to us as a nation, but it also sets the scene on how we as a nation intend to lead in what we do for our marine and coastal environments. I would like to repeat my thanks not only to Members in this House and in the other place who have contributed to an excellent debate so far, but to the 15,000 or so members of other organisations who responded to the consultation on the Bill, for which they have been waited for some years. We could say that it has effectively taken six years of pre-legislative scrutiny to bring us to the Committee today.
I look forward to a constructive engagement through the course of our deliberations and hope that we can give the Bill a good debate at all stages. We on this side of the Committee are certainly willing to give it extra time and to go late into the evenings, with your approval, Mr Gale, to ensure that we have adequate time for discussion.

Richard Benyon: I would like to echo the Ministers welcome to you, Mr. Gale, and look forward to your help and guidance throughout this process. As he said, there have been lengthy discussions on the Bill in another place, but I hope that the programme motion will allow us to tease out a few key areas of debate to improve the Bill. For many people who have contacted us, the key aspect is the establishment of marine conservation zones and the nature conservation elements in the Bill. We obviously welcome some changes made in another place, such as the inclusion of the words ecologically coherent, if not in the Bill itself, then in the statement laid before the House. Such changes are most welcome, but there are areas where we need time to clarify just how those conservation zones will be achieved and in what time scale. There are many other aspects of the Bill that we will cover in the meat of our debates, as the Minster said.
We have concerns about the provisions on coastal access, although not about the principle of achieving greater access to coastal Britain, on which there is much agreement. We will be seeking time to secure a better balance in certain areas. We will seek clarification on privacy, liability and biosecurity. We have introduced and will continue to introduce a range of amendments: some probing, some seeking to underline and secure concessions in another place, and others to make more fundamental changes to the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we seek, in all cases, to adopt an attitude of co-operation and consensus, as was the case in another place. There will be times when we will not agree but, let us be frank, if the marine part of the Bill were to go on to the statute book today it would be a giant leap forward in marine conservation and would create a framework to address an area of our environment that has waited too long for the protection it deserves.

Andrew George: May I, too, welcome you, Mr. Gale, to our proceedings as one of our Chairmen until we rise on 16 July, as I assume we will use all the time available to us? Although I entirely agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Newbury on the need for further probing and fine tuning, basically we are pretty happy with the Bill and its general direction. If it were implemented tomorrow, we would be pleased and proud with what we already have.
However, a number of issues need to be teased out further. I am sure that the Minister accepts that industries with interest in the marine resource and conservation bodies want reassurance on a number of issues that need clarification. I hope we will retain the co-operative and consensual approach which has been a feature of the debates on the Bill so far.
The Minister and I have a great deal in common. We are both Celts and we share a medical condition in which we take an interest. The Minister also owes me a favour because I helped him out when he was found without any trousers one daymore of which we will debate as the Committee proceeds. Beyond that, Mr. Gale, I hope not to take advantage of the favour the Minister owes me.
I hope we will persuade the Minister on a number of issues during debate on the Bill. I also hope the Minister will not approach the measure with the intentionas is often the case with Government Billsof defending to the hilt the Governments red lines, irrespective of the strength of the arguments. I hope rather that he will approach it with an open mind, listen to the strength of the arguments, be prepared to compromise and accept that fine tuning might result in further amendments to the Bill.

Martin Salter: I was going to say how much I was looking forward to serving on the Committee but the prospect of continued medical bonding between the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Minister is too horrible to contemplate. I hope that is the last we hear of it, Mr. Gale. I am sure you will clamp down on that kind of nonsense.
I reiterate that this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I welcome the commitment to the broad principles given by both Opposition parties. Many other Members and I worked closely with the Minister and his predecessor Ministers to see the legislation reach the stage it does today. I put on the record a slight concern, for the Ministers ears in particular. A number of usparticularly my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Plymouth, Sutton, the hon. Member for Broxbourne and myselfworked long and hard on the Joint Committee. The Bill has been the subject of extensive scrutiny, and the work of the Joint Committee must not be mothballed, it has to be a point of reference. There might be times when, on an all-party basis, we will come up against Whitehall red lines, but going back to some of the deliberation that took place in the Joint Committee might give the Minister strength to push back some of the red lines that need to be a little less starkly drawn, particularly on nature conservation and sea fisheries issues that we will discuss. However, the programme motion is broadly sensible, and I think that we can meet the timetable we have set ourselves, precisely because of the extensive scrutiny that both Houses have already had the opportunity to engage in.

Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, there is another housekeeping issue, mainly for the benefit of the Officers of the House. I am conscious that there is considerable public interest in the Bill, and, as always, we have managed to find the largest Committee Room with the smallest Public Gallery. I am also aware that there might be some people representing lobbying organisations who will wish to be here for most, if not all, of the Bill proceedings. If those people would quietly identify themselves to the Officer on dutyI am not allowed to see the Gallery from hereI personally have no objection to their sitting in the Press Gallery, which, as you will note, is unoccupied.

Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Clause 44

Marine policy statement

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 44, page 27, line 2, leave out contributing to and insert furthering.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 29, in clause 44, page 27, line 16, at end insert
(4A) In this Part sustainable development means the maintenance or enhancement of the purposes underlying the designation of the MCZ, in accordance with section 117..
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out making a contribution to the achievement of and insert
taking reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of its functions to further.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the MMO has a duty to further sustainable development. This gives the MMO a sufficiently robust objective to be responsible for furthering and not just making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out contribution to the achievement of and insert furthering of.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the MMO has a duty to further sustainable development. This gives the MMO a sufficiently robust objective to be responsible for furthering and not just making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development.

Richard Benyon: For the benefit of the Gallery, we all need to keep our voices up. Any of us who attend the 1922 committee in this room know that it is impossible to hear from the back, and I shall therefore try to ensure that people in the Gallery can hear me.
Clause 44 outlines precisely what a marine policy statement is and our amendment seeks to ensure that it includes a duty to further sustainable development, rather than merely contribute to it. Contributing to infers a finite involvement in sustainable development, while furthering signifies a continuous effort towards its achievement, which is what is needed for the effective management of, and planning for, our seas. As the marine policy statement is to be the overarching policy that will inform marine planning in all UK waters, it is crucial that we endow it with a sufficiently robust objective.
The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is similar to that of amendment 9. They relate to part 1 of the Bill, but have been grouped with amendment 9 because they refer to exactly the same wording, but in the context of the creation of the Marine Management Organisation. They will ensure that the MMO has a sufficiently robust objective to be responsible for furthering rather than
making a contribution to the achievement
of sustainable development.
Making a contribution is relatively benign wording, and furthering would make it a more important statement in the context of sustainable development. The MMO is being marketed as the one-stop shop for marine management, and as such should take a leading rather than a contributory role in sustainable development.

Andrew George: Amendment 29 has been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and its purpose is to probe what we mean by sustainable development. While I appreciate and very much support the intentions behind amendment 9, it presupposes, as does the Bill, that we know what we are asking the Bill to achieve in terms of sustainable development.
On the DEFRA website, sustainable development is defined very much in global terms:
The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations.
I agree that we need some basic conceptual terminology that can take us forward in a debate without having constantly to redefine what we mean. The term sustainable development is broadly understood, albeit that it is rather fluffy at the edges. The concept is that it does not compromise the ecology of the resource that we are trying to protect while at the same time allowing some development within the environment. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of how we achieve the balance between development and conserving that ecology resource.
The Ministers argument for not including a definition of sustainable development is that it would lock the Bill into one definition, which could not be updated in the light of future developments. I understand that, but it must be possible somewhere at least to establish a benchmark below which sustainable development will not allow the ecological resource to fall. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to acknowledge that sustainable development must mean that we are trying to achieve at least the maintenance, if not the enhancement, of the marine conservation zone.
We have to begin by acknowledging that the purpose of designating a marine conservation zone is to protect something that it is there and, because past activities within it may have degraded the marine biodiversity of the area, to enhance it. We certainly do not want to allow that marine ecology to fall below its current level. It is not asking too much to expect the Minister to acknowledge that that is what we are trying to achieve. If he is not prepared to accept a definition in the Bill itself, I hope that he will at least reassure me that there will be strengthened wording in the guidance that will accompany the Bill.

Martin Salter: None of us wants to see almost the first decision of this Committee to be caught up in controversy or unnecessary division, but the Minister will have to give some ground on this issue. I remind the Minister and the Committee what the Joint Committee said about this issue. The Whips may also want to bear in mind that the names of three Labour Members are attached to the recommendation. Page 22 of the Joint Committee report reads:
The Environment Agency argued that the MMO should have a duty to further conservation of marine flora and fauna and to secure compliance with the Water Framework Directive requirements and objectives in transitional and coastal waters.
Britain has signed up to the water framework directive, so we are going to have to go down this road anyway. The Government really should not be willing to push back on the issue. On page 22 of the Joint Committee, recommendation 39, which a number of us put our names to, states:
We have no doubt, from the weight of the evidence received, that the statement of purpose of the MMO is ambiguous both in terms of the draft Bill and in the policy framework which the Government envisages.
I do not believe that anybody here wants the statement of purpose to remain ambiguous. It may be, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has said, that that can be resolved in guidance. It may be that that can be resolved if the Government accept the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, and to which my name is attached.
Finally, recommendation 40 states:
Beyond this high-level objective, we also consider that clear duties should be set out on the face of the Bill to ensure that the new organisation works to meet the aspirations which Parliament has set for it. We recommend that these include a duty to further sustainable development and we suggest that this be based on the eco-system approach to managing the marine environment.
The arguments are overwhelming, and I will be very interested to hear the Ministers response.

Charles Walker: The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Bill needs to have real teeth. The Bill needs to be the champion of the marine environment. In the future, when we see projects that may make perfect economic sense, we want to be able to say, No. They make economic sense, but the cost to the marine environment is too high. That is what I, and the hon. Member for Reading, West, are seeking to achieve as part of the Committee. The sea the marine environmentneeds a real champion. It is time for the House and its Members to step up to the plate and ensure that that is exactly what happens.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am very glad to begin with the part 3, which concerns the new system of marine planning. That is a key manifesto commitment, and the marine planning proposals form the heart of the Bill. This strategic approach to how we manage what goes on in our seas is absolutely fundamental to our deliberations. Let me recap, because the issue goes to the heart to the debate that we have just had and the very worthwhile contributions that we have just heard.
What we have done in the Commons and the other place is clarify the arrangements for scrutiny of the draft marine policy statement by the approved legislatures, including Parliament. We have placed a requirement in the Bill for the draft marine policy statement to undergo an appraisal of sustainability. We are also able to commit to carrying out a strategic environmental assessment, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne has mentioned, of the draft marine policy statement as part of that appraisal of sustainability. We have placed new reporting duties on marine plan authorities. As we will discuss, in the other place we decided to accept the duty placed on marine plan authorities to seek to ensure that marine plans are prepared for all marine regions, where the marine policy statement governs planning.

Charles Walker: One concern relates to the Severn estuary barrage. I am afraid and concerned that, very early on, the MMO will be overridden to allow the barrage, in its worst construct, to go ahead.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Within the Bill there are provisions to ensure that that sort of cross-border working operates effectively. We also need to ensure an effective relationship between the marine planning system and the terrestrial planning system, and between national infrastructure projects and what we need to do to conserve the very best of our seas. We will return to point, which is valid, as the Committee proceeds.
I return to the amendments, which are worth while and which explore the crux of the issue. Amendment 9 relates to whether we use the words contributing to or furthering, which was subject to a great deal of debate in the other place. The amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Broxbourne, Clwyd West, East Devon, Newbury and Upminster, proposes replacing
contributing to the achievement of sustainable development
with furthering. Committee members will be aware of the extensive discussions in the other place on very similar amendments, which related to the MMOs general objective in clause 2. I accept that this context is slightly differentwe are talking about wording that defines the permitted content of a document rather than an objective intended to inform an organisations actions. However, to some extent, that is part of the problem with the amendment.
To explain, policies set out in a document cannot themselves further sustainable development, unless applications are made and decisions are taken in accordance with those policies that result in real changes in activity in the marine area. In the same way, the MMO alone will not be able to achieve sustainable development, because there are so many other actors and regulators in the marine area that also need to contribute. We need to do this together, and that is part of the essence of the Bill.
The purpose of the marine policy statement, which we are talking about here, is to ensure that the actions of all those public bodies and regulators are aimed at the same objective. We share that same objective here, which is each organisation making its individual contribution to achieving sustainable development in the marine area. Clause 44(1)(a) makes it clear that each and every policy in the MPS, if implemented, contributes to sustainable development

Charles Walker: Will the Minister, at some stage in Committee, define sustainable development? We have sustainable communities and all sorts of sustainables but it is almost becoming a glib phrase. What is it?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. That goes to the heart of the problem with putting a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. Years ago I was lecturing on the subject and we looked at various definitions. Everybody knows the triangle of sustainable developmenteconomic, environmental and socialbut there are varying definitions of what it means. Do we have weak or strong sustainability? Jacobs definition varies from others. The problem is defining it now, when sustainable development is a changing concept. We understand the broad parameters, and I can give the hon. Gentleman and Committee members our definition.
What do we mean by sustainable development? The UK Administrations have adopted five shared principles that set out the basic framework for sustainability: first, living within our environmental limits; secondly, achieving a just society, which means a just society for all those concerned with marine conservation and for those whose livelihoods depend on the sea; thirdly, a sustainable economy; fourthly, good governance of the marine environment, which is what the Bill is about; and, finally, there is sound science. Those five principles underpin what the UK Administrations have collectively signed up to. Hon. Members may not have seen the document yet, but we have also expressed those principles in our high-level objectives for the marine area, which we set out recently and will underpin the marine policy statement.

Linda Gilroy: I have been looking at Our seasa shared resource. High level marine objectives, which seems to set out what the Minister is saying. What status do the objectives have? I am struggling to understand what harm there would be in accepting the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I am happy to proceed on that point because it is a vital argument that needs fleshing out. I shall turn to the legal status of the objectives in a moment. As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to bring forward a lot of guidance as we have debated the Bill.
The debate over furthering or contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is, in some ways, a misunderstanding of what sustainable development means. It is not a state of being in one time; we cannot say, Today we have achieved sustainable development, so weve done with it, or, Our seas are in a state of sustainable development, lets sit back. Instead, sustainable development must be seen and defined as an ongoing process of ensuring that all our actions, including decisions on development and conservation in the marine area, are sustainable in the long term.
The wording of the Bill makes it clear that each policy and each action by all public authorities must pull in the same direction, making its own individual contribution, right across the board to ensure that the marine area is used in a sustainable way.
Concerns were expressed in the other place that the obligation for a marine policy statement to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable development
could be met simply by including policies on the establishment of marine conservation zones. I want to make it clear that that is neither our interpretation nor our intention. Members of the Committee should have received a copy of the high-level marine objectives, to which I have referred. As I pointed out, those objectives have now been agreed by all the various UK Administrations and Ministers, and they will underpin the MPS as we take it forward.

Hugo Swire: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the harnessing of wave power and tidal power is in its infancy in this country but it is likely to grow. Those forms of power would be regarded as sustainable development and sustainable energy. However, does he not see that, further down the line, there will be increasing tension between the commercial needs of the developers of wave power and wind power and the marine conservation zones?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No. What I see in the Bill is the opportunity to streamline decision making. The agreed marine policies for the high-level objectives and marine policy statements, followed by the marine planning from the four Administrations around the UK, will give clarity and certainty. In addition, the MMO and the way in which we are reforming licensing will provide a much more streamlined process, so that people will know where marine conservation zones are and where there are areas in which we need to protect important flora, fauna and so on. The Bill should enable better, more streamlined decision making and that is why it has been broadly welcomed by those who are interested in development, as well as by those who are interested in conservation.

Charles Walker: I promise that this is the last time that I will interrupt the Minister, because I know that he wants to make progress; I am sure that all parties want to make progress. He said that decisions will be based on sound science. On that basis, I cannot see how the Severn estuary barrage can progress beyond the point where we are now. The Severn estuary is one of the most precious environmental sites in Europe and indeed the world, and he has just acknowledged that that status will be a major factor in the decision-making process. Can he therefore tell the Committee here and now that the Severn estuary barrage, as currently envisaged by the DTI or whatever it is called now, will not go ahead?

Roger Gale: Order. Nice try, but no.

Huw Irranca-Davies: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman will know that, under European habitats directives, our concerns are to ensure that if any of the five and a half ideas on the proposals that exist were to proceed, they would do so in the light of the very special environmental status that the Severn estuary has.
I wanted to address the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton about the legal status of the high-level objectives. The statement of the UK Government with the devolved Administrations within those high-level objectives is a statement of policy, and the MPS will be based on the framework laid out within that. It does not have the legal status, as she will know, of being part of primary legislation, but that is material to the debate that we are having. It is pertinent that we have chosen to bring that statement forward during the course of our proceedings, to clarify our intentions.
I want to turn to the amendment 9. Beyond the philosophical arguments about sustainable development and the wording of furthering and contributing to, there is a concern about the legal precedent that would be set by the proposed amendment. The drafting of clause 44 will almost certainly be familiar to members of the Committee from more than 70 other Bills and Acts, including, most recently, the Planning Act 2008 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which will shortly return to this House on Report. The drafting is a consistent use of a legal formulation relating to sustainable development that has developed over many years to form a legal precedent. I therefore have deep concerns that a different formulation in relation to the marine policy statement would imply to the courts that this Committee and Parliament intend the MPS to have a different purpose from the terrestrial planning documents, with which the statement needs to integrate and synthesise. There is therefore a genuine concern relating to legal precedent.

Martin Salter: I am listening to the Ministers argument with care. Will he quote the part of the Governments response to the Joint Committee in which deep concerns were expressed, as I suspect that they were not expressed? If there are deep concerns, they relate to the advice given to us by the Environment Agency, which we charge with helping us develop policy, and to the concerns of the Committee itself.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to respond to my hon. Friends question if I am able to drag the Governments response from some inspired corner. Certainly, our strong advice is that, if the Bill took a different approach from the clear and well-understood legal precedent that has been established over a number of years, that would lead to a potential legal interpretation that the intention behind the provision differs from our interpretation of contributing to sustainable development in 70 other measures.
Following the concerns raised in the other place, we amended the Bill to place an express requirement on the policy authorities to carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policies proposed to be included in the MPS. That is significant, because the new requirement means that policies in relation to marine plans may only be included if the sustainability appraisal indicates that it is appropriate to do so. I can also confirm that, having carefully considered the points raised by their lordships during their debates, and in the light of the advice of our lawyers, the UK Government and devolved Administrations are now able to commit to undertaking a strategic environmental assessment of the draft MPS within the terms of the European Union directive on the strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes. That is significant, because it bolsters and strengthens our approach to sustainable development. It also puts it in the context of the Bill and does not jeopardise it by overstepping the mark and setting up what would be a diversion from what has been established by legal terminology. I hope that I have clarified our commitment to ensuring that the MPS contains policies that, taken together across the board and individually, make a genuine and positive contribution to sustainable development in marine areas.

Charles Walker: A final point. The Minister is again rightly focusing on sustainable development. What will happen in those areas in which development has already been proven not to be sustainable? I am thinking in particular about fisheries. What will he do to redress the balance in such areas? Has he provided for that in his opening statement?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Not in respect of the amendments under discussion, but we will come to that issue, not least when we discuss aspects of conservation. Running through the Bill is the intention to protect our most special habitats and all the different types of flora and fauna on the sea bed. Socio-economic factors may also be taken into account. The hon. Member for East Devon has spoken about issues such as wind and tidal energy, and we must also consider marine stream energy, dredging, the laying of cables, oil energy and so on. The protection of the very best of our marine environment runs through the Bill; we will turn to that again later, but the Bill allows for socio-economic factors to be taken into account.
The issues covered by amendment 29 relate to the discussion that we have just had. The amendment was tabled by the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Brecon and Radnorshire, and seeks to place a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. It provides, for the purposes of part 3, that sustainable development means the conservation of marine flora or fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitats, or features of geological or geo-morphological interest. Since the marine policy statement to be prepared under part 3 sets the context for all marine plans and all decisions by public authority, whether those decisions are taken under the Bill or under the exercise of any other powersthat is what the Bill doesthe amendment would effectively mean that the objectives of any marine plan or any decision that could affect the marine environment should be conservation and conservation alone. The policy of conservation alone would apply to the whole UK marine area, not just those areas identified as requiring designation as a marine conservation zone. Naturally, in the light of the discussions we are havingand this goes to the meat of the Billwhat I cannot do is support an amendment that would undermine the entire purpose of the marine planning system and, perhaps, even the entire Bill, which is meant to help us ensure that the marine area is managed in a way that is sustainable over the long term. That cannot simply mean conserving or enhancing natural features, important as that is. The marine resources around the UK are also vital for our economy, and it is not necessary or appropriate to cease our exploitation of them. That would not benefit anyone.
If all decisions, as proposed in the amendment, had to be taken in accordance with documents concerned only with maintaining or enhancing the conservation of existing natural resources, how could we in future, for example, license any fishing activity, or dredging, or the development of renewable energy installations that might cause limited damage to existing natural resources? As an illustration, even the installation of a farm of wind turbines, to help us reduce our carbon footprint and combat climate change, involves activity that does not conserve or enhance the natural geology and geo-morphology. Clause 58(1) requires public authorities to take decisions in accordance with the MPS and with marine plans
unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.
We have carefully structured these provisions on the MPS and marine plans so that it should rarely be appropriate for public authorities to rely on this exception. Licensing and other authorities must in appropriate cases be able to take account of the economic and social needs of the UK, and they would need to rely on relevant considerations and exceptions, as well as the MPS and the marine plans, but that would be increasingly undermined if the amendment were accepted. That issue was considered extensively in the other place and I stand by the arguments made there by my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There are many different definitions of sustainable development, and there have been quite a few attempts to define what it is. I do not believe that the absence of a definition in the Bill is a problem. Having a definition in the Bill that might differ from how the term is used, for example, in international law might lead to inconsistency and challenge.
If development is to be sustainable, it must be sustainable not only for the environment but within the triangle I described earlier, which provides the basic parameters of sustainability and sustainable development. It has be sustainable for those humans who live and work in it, not least hon. Members constituents who rely on that environment. That is why the policy set out in the marine policy statement should contribute to environmental sustainability, including the need to designate an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones and other designated sites, and protect our rare, threatened and representative species and habitats. It must also contribute to the sustainability of the UKs economy and society. As my noble Friend said in Committee in the other place, the UKs present understanding of the meaning of sustainable development is set out in the UK sustainable development strategy. There are five shared principles which provide the framework for sustainability: living within environmental limits; and achieving a just society, a sustainable economy, good governancein this respect, in a marine environmentand sound science. Those are good principles to underpin sustainable development.

Andrew George: The Minister will understand that the purpose of the amendment relates to marine conservation zones, not marine planning as a whole. This is the most appropriate part of the Bill in which to mention sustainable development, so a definition is clearly required. My problem with the Ministers response thus far is that he now appears to be replacing one piece of conceptual languagesustainable developmentwith five competing pieces of conceptual language, which make the whole thing even less pin-downable, for want of a better expression. Whether we are contributing to or furthering something, the fact that that something is a set of five competing conceptual issues makes the whole process a great deal more frustratingthe Minister must understand that. It would be enormously helpful if he would at least attempt to pin this matter down a little more.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but this goes to the very heart of what we mean by sustainable development and how we articulate that in the Bill. Going forward on the principles that underpin sustainable development is a good approach. It would be a retrograde step to pin down one concept of sustainable development at the moment. Over the past 20 years, the definition of sustainable development has changed. Alternative definitions have been tried, then put back in the cupboard as new ones have come forward. However, the underpinning principles, difficult as they are, are the right ones. Those principles were originally defined in terms of the social, environmental and economic triangle and are enshrined in the agreement between the four Administrations. Here we have a different language, but it is about balancing the protection of our habitats and the protection of the constituents off the Welsh coast and the north-east of England who might want to bring forward energy projects. That is what sustainable development is all about; it is not purely conservation.

Roger Williams: Surely what the Minister says about the five principles that underpin sustainable development is similar to saying that the whole of a building is the foundations. The foundations are important, but we have to see what the building looks like and how we can use it. That is the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The underlying principles are one thing, but what sustainability is is another, and that is where we are trying to get to.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I sort of see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the foundations are critical here. As has been mentioned in the opening comments, this is very much a framework Bill that puts in place the right mechanism to take forward the sustainable development of our marine environment. That is the core part of the Bill. We are not trying to paint the house, but to allow the marine plans to be brought forward, and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the MMO to introduce byelaws. We have sound foundations and the Bill and the guidance that supplements it articulate exactly what we mean by sustainable development. I suspect that we might be dancing around a concept herewhether it is better to say contributing to or furtheringwhen actually we are aiming at the same end.
In terms of this second amendment, going down that line would lead to the opportunity of challenge, because it goes against what we have in 70 Acts. The agreed form of words, and what we mean by sustainable development, is well enshrined in law. I genuinely understand the purpose of the amendment. We are trying to get to the same end, but I am arguing that the measure will give us that end, particularly when it is underpinned by those principles.
On amendment 1, as I said on Second Reading, we already have a strong objective for the Marine Management Organisation. In the other place, Lord Hunt went into great detail about why we feel that amendments such as this, which require the MMO to further rather than to make a contribution to sustainable development, are not appropriate. I do not want to repeat what Lord Hunt said, but I will make a few key points to reinforce the reasons. First, we already have a strong objective for the MMO, which received much attention in the other place and was strengthened as a result of that scrutiny. We have brought in a new power that allows the MMO, in pursuit of its general objective, to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and take any actions it considers necessary or expedient for furthering its social, economic or environmental purposes.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will give guidance to the MMO on how it is to ensure that it makes its contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. That guidance is currently being drafted, and it will be agreed by the cross-Government sponsorship group for the MMO. That guidance will then be subject to scrutiny by Parliament, ensuring that the MMO acts on behalf of all those with an interest in the seas.

Roger Gale: Order. I really cannot have Members wandering about the Room chatting to each otherthere are lovely green benches outside provided for that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Gale. The guidance will be drawn up in the context of the high-level marine objectives and the draft marine policy statement, which will set out the four Administrations agreed policies for contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. I therefore believe that it is through statutory guidance that the MMOs role in relation to sustainable development will be laid out in detail.
Finally, I do not think that the amendment will make a practical difference to how the sea is managed. The words making a contribution to are appropriate, given that the MMO, working within a framework of a UK-wide marine policy statement, will not be able to achieve sustainable development on its own, as I said earlier. Although the MMO has a critical role, the actual achievement of sustainable development in the marine area will be the focus of a partnership effort by all the agencies and authorities concerned with how the seas are managed. That includes other delivery bodies, regulators, devolved Administrations and the vast range of users of the sea and its resources.
The Government are confident that the package of amendments made on Report in the other place significantly strengthened the Bill, and we were pleased to hear those amendments being generally welcomed by all parties at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said on Second Reading that he and his colleagues were pleased that the duty to require the guidance relating to sustainability criteria to be consulted on and laid before the House had been added to the Bill and that those criteria would be strengthened as a result. I think that those were appropriate words to say.
I understand why the amendments have been raised again, not least because Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart in the other place put their names to the Government amendments on the MMOs general objective. On those amendments, which strengthened what we have done, Lord Taylor said:
It is clear from the addition of my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart to them that they have our support... The other amendments in the group are also extremely welcome and go a long way towards addressing our concerns about the drafting of Clause 2. The Government have also decided that legislative consistency means that they cannot accept furthering or promoting sustainable development in the MMO's duties, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the new power to further the three pillars of sustainable development will be critical to ensure that the MMO can make a real difference to our marine environment.[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 458.]

Martin Salter: I am still waiting for the Minister to inform the Committee why the Environment Agency got it wrong when it said that the MMO should have a duty to further the conservation of marine fauna, for example, as I quoted earlier, and why the Joint Committee got it wrong. I specifically asked him to inform us what the Governments response to the Joint Committee was, because he said in his response that that could seriously undermine the Bill. If it is as serious as he suggests, that will be reflected in the Governments response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point again. In the Governments response to the Joint Committee, we ruled out defining sustainable development on the face of the Bill for the reasons I have laid out, but we did say that we would consider how to clarify the MMO objectives, which is what we did in the other place. I want to reiterate what we have done and how it has been welcomed. We responded to the Joint Committee not by defining it in the Bill, for all the reasons I have given, but by strengthening and clarifying what we would do in terms of the marine management objectives.

Martin Salter: Will the Minister read out the Government response, rather than interpret it? I feel that it is the first time he may have seen it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, it is not. Paragraph 3.1.9 states:
We are currently considering whether and, if so, what changes could be made to meet Joint Committee and public consultation requests to clarify the MMOs purpose and its general objective.
We listened and brought forward changes on the back of that.

Martin Salter: May I put it to the Minister that that hardly justifies the statement that the amendment, which has cross-party support and which would replace contributing to with furthering, seriously undermines the structure of the Bill? The Government response goes nowhere near that point. Does he not agree? The answer is yes.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We responded to the Joint Committee by bringing forward clarification on what the MMO should do to contribute to the achievement of sustainability. There is also what we signed off on the high-level policy objectives and what will come through in the marine policy statement. My hon. Friend is right that the legal precedent aspect was not picked up at the time, but I am picking it up very quickly now. We are faced with a long legal precedent as sustainable development has been a concept for quite some time. It is enshrined within another 70 pieces of legislation and its interpretation in the law courts is very clear. Therefore, if we chose to adopt a different form of wording here it would be interpreted that we mean something different.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in the Bill with other pieces of legislation that have or may have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of this amendment. If he tabled such an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party support.

Martin Salter: On that point

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot intervene on an intervention.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that is a very good suggestion. I am minded to look at whether we can do that. Paragraph 7 in schedule 5 refers to the sustainability appraisal, which is what I have been talking about. There is a way to clarify this without setting out a different legal approach in the Bill.
Martin Salterrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: Before I give way, my hon. Friend also mentioned the Environment Agency. Could I make a clarification here as things move on apace? My understanding is that the Environment Agency has accepted the strengthening of the MMO objective and it is no longer seeking any change to that objective. In fact, I was pleased to meet the Environment Agency in the last week or so and I discussed that issue with them. The Environment Agency recognises how far we have come.
However, I am more than willing to take that point about schedule 5 away and consider it, because it might be a way forward. I think that we are aiming to do the same thing here; it is just that the way of doing it must not challenge what has been established by some quite significant legal precedents.

Martin Salter: I commend the approach outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. As a signatory to the amendment, I would be very happy if the Minister were to take that approach, assuming that we can build consensus across the Committeejudging by the body language of my colleagues, we might be able to do so.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have been through this matter in some detail, and I understand where the Committee is coming from. We need to get the approach right. However, we do not want to jeopardise the whole nature of the Bill, which is about protecting and conserving the very best of our marine environment while at the same time ensuring that our approach to sustainability does not unnecessarily jeopardise those who make a living from the sea.
It has been a very good debate. We will certainly take that point away and see what we can do. Meanwhile, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment, for the reasons that I have set out.

Roger Gale: Before I call Mr. Benyon to wind up the debate, do you, Mr. George, have anything further that you wish to add?

Andrew George: I am not sure whether I should come in before or after the hon. Member for Newbury.

Roger Gale: Once I call a Member to wind up the debate, that is it.

Andrew George: Thank you for your guidance and advice, Mr. Gale. I am grateful to you for that.
Having listened to what the Minister has said, I regret to say that I am more troubled than I was when I raised the issue. During the debate, particularly with regard to the definition of sustainable development, the metaphor of building a house and having sound foundations was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I must say that the five pillars or bricks on which sustainable development and the policy of respecting and furthering or contributing to sustainable development are based are not really solid pieces of rock, so I am not reassured that we are building a sound and stable house. A lot of the issues are, in fact, shifting sandsthey are rather woolly and fuzzy around the edges.
The emphasis on economic sustainability, for example, as opposed to promoting justice or not living beyond limits is important. Those concepts are all concepts that could tilt the house one way or another, so that it becomes worse than the leaning tower of Pisa, depending on the shifting emphasis that is part of either the popular or political discourse at any particular time. Therefore, I must say that we are not building a sound house. The fact is that the five pillars or building blocks, as it were, on which sustainable development is to be furthered or contributed to are rather uncertain.
I agree with the Minister that the only rock among the five pillarsit is a very important rock, indeedis that of sound science. Sound science is pretty immovable. Even these days, when there is apparently a growing enthusiasm for creationism, there is still the rock of sound science. Clearly it must be emphasised in the way in which this policy and the concept of sustainable development must be either furthered or contributed to.
Cynics will say that in a future scenario the Government could easily emphasise one concept more than another, and we could end up with, not a balanced objective outcome, but a politically driven outcome on sustainable development and on what that means for whether a development is permitted, licensed or protected.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am a little worried that we might be getting caught up in a subsequent debate on conservation and marine conservation zones. The essence of what we are debating is sustainable development and how we achieve it. That will go across the MMO, marine planning and so onit underpins the Bill. There will be a different debate, when we come to marine conservation zones, about how conservation is shot through those and about how socio-economic factors may be taken into account. I am worried that here, in this debate, we may be misunderstanding the issue slightly and trying to enshrine in the Bill conservation rather than sustainable development, which would imbalance the Bill significantly. Marine conservation zones are a different debate.

Andrew George: I accept the Ministers point, but the problem is that this is one of our main opportunities in Committee to debate the issue, to understand what is in the Ministers mind and to discover what standards on sustainable development future Governments, the MMO and other agencies will be held to. I accept that we will have opportunities to come back to specific aspects of the Bill, such as the furtherance of objectives and programmes and the nature of licensing activities within marine conservation zones. Having said that, clause 44 refers to sustainable development. Whether we are talking about furthering or contributing to it, unless we are clear about what it is, I will remain troubled that we may be seeking to further a woolly conceptual issue. Frankly, whether we further or contribute to it is inconsequential in the scheme of things. The hon. Member for Newbury may wish to pick up on that point in his closing remarks.
In conclusion, I appreciate that we will have an opportunity to examine specific aspects of what sustainable development means and at getting the balance rightI accept that there is a balance. However, I remain more, rather than less, troubled as a result of the debate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter. I also hope that we can discuss the issue as we proceed, and perhaps come back to the guidance and table further amendments on Report.

Richard Benyon: Beginning with amendment 29, tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, in the piles of documents on the Bill in my office, I have seen a definition of sustainable development somewhereit could have been in the White Paper or the Green Paper. It involved flow charts and was as clear as some of this debate has been on the direction that this is going.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives, but I am concerned about how his amendment would impact on the Bill. Therefore, I am persuaded by the Ministers arguments. The definition appears to ignore socio-economic principles. It would reduce the flexibility of marine conservation zones, and it ignores the role of marine planning in, for example, climate change mitigation and proposed wind farms. While conservation is the primary objective of MCZs, we should not completely ignore socio-economic elements.
I have been persuaded by many of the non-governmental organisations arguments. Indeed, as an old landlubber, I have been educated and even entranced by the information with which they have provided me about the diversity and beauty of our seas, and so much more. However, on the issue under discussion, the Bill is correctly balanced, and it would not be right at this stage to support the amendment, even though it is an honest attempt at trying to define sustainable development in accordance with section 117, which is important.
We have made progress on amendment 9, as well. Will the Minister assure us that he will follow the recommendation made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to use paragraph 7 of schedule 5 in order to meet the amendments objectives?

Huw Irranca-Davies: On the comments made by the hon. Member for Newbury and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the issue is important in terms of not only legal precedent, as I have mentioned, but the devolved Administrations and others being content with our treatment of the Bill. On schedule 5, I will write to the members of the Committee to explain and clarify how we intend the Bill to drive sustainable development forward, and how that is linked to other related areas. That may be of significant help to members of the Committee in order to explain clearly how the Bill is underpinned by sustainable development.

Richard Benyon: If the Minister confirms that that will involve the insertion of words into paragraph 7 of schedule 5, I shall not press the amendment further at this stage, but I seek clarification. For example, he has talked about semantics in the sense that the documents policies cannot further, but they can contribute to sustainable development. The Minister needs to provide more comfort on that. Also, will he clarify that he will come back to us on the legal advice that he has received? It may be that 70 Acts use the wording that he has proposed, but that does not necessarily prevent synergy with other types of legislation. Will he clarify whether schedule 5 will be amended?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Bearing in mind the work that has already taken place on the Bill, as well as the way in which the issue under discussion would impact not only on us, but also on devolved Administrations, which is one of the key facets, I make it clear that we will not amend schedule 5, because that would not be right or proper. However, I am happy to explore the issue further with devolved Administrations and others to see whether there is any scope on the matter, and I will return with the results at a subsequent stage. I do not think that the Committee wants us, even when we take todays debate into consideration, to make a decision that would lead to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland claiming that we had unbalanced what they considered to be a good and clear way forward on sustainable development. So I am happy to make that commitment, as opposed to saying that we will bring forward the amendment to schedule 5 now.

Richard Benyon: If the Minister will forgive me, going down the devolved route is a bit of a canard on this issue. I really feel that he has not quite given us the assurance we would require to get something in the Bill. We will be pressing our amendment to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: The Committee will note that throughout the selection list there are a number of clauses that do not have amendments. I propose to call those clauses by number and rattle through them. If any Member wishes to speak to any of those clauses, please indicate and I will then stop. Otherwise, I shall move them en bloc.

Clause 45

Preparation and coming into effect of statement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: I do not intend to detain the Committee long. My reading of subsections (1) and (3) is that there is a potential conflict between them. They also effectively allow the Secretary of State to overrule his compatriots in the devolved Administrations if he or she fails to come to an agreement with them when, initially at least, preparing marine policy statements. There are some important issues here, particularly regarding migratory fauna and other species, where a devolved Administration will clearly have an interest in what the Secretary of State is capable of doing in the waters within their own jurisdiction. For that reason, I seek the Ministers reassurance that there is an acknowledgement that the Secretary of State has, in effect, an overruling power in that regard. That is irrespective of how carefully the clause is worded, and of the fact that subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State must at least show that they have consulted the other policy authorities during the process of any amendment to the MPS.
The scenario I am painting is that the Secretary of State will come to an agreement with the other policy authorities to bring forward a plan on which there is agreement. Shortly thereafter, however, having failed to persuade those other policy authorities of his or her views on the matter, the Secretary of State will simply bring forward an alternative policy statement and ignore the consultation process.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to raise this issue and I look forward to hearing the Ministers response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. The opening words of the clause, in subsection (1), make clear our intention that an MPS should be prepared by
all the policy authorities, acting jointly.
That is what we are trying to get at in the clause, and it is quite a win for the Bill. It is the approach that we and the devolved Administrations are committed to, and it will provide the best foundation for a comprehensive, joined-up and effective planning system.
However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, we must acknowledge the realities of devolution, and the Bill does that. The devolved Administrations may from time to time espouse different policies from those of the UK Government regarding some of the matters being devolved to them, and it would be within their right and power to do so. Despite all the genuine good willthere is real good will on this issue, and the best of intentionsit is not possible to require in law that we must all agree. Otherwise, we risk not having any MPS at all.
For that reason, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the clause enables the Secretary of State to proceed without the involvement of the three devolved Administrations and to act alone if necessary. The Secretary of State must always be involved in preparing and adopting any MPS. That reflects the importance of having an MPS in place to set out the strategic policy framework, even if it is not the joint statement we would always wish to have.
I must say that that is not our preferred position. Therefore, the clause requires that the Secretary of State formally invite the other policy authorities to participate before reluctantly taking any decision to proceed alone.

Roger Williams: If a devolved nation decided to go down a different policy route, how would that decision interact with the Marine Management Organisation, for instance? Would the MMO take cognisance of the devolved Assemblys policy, or would it have to react to the policy that the Secretary of State had signed off?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, the MMO will always have cognisance of what is happening in border areas with other authorities. As the hon. Gentleman will know and as was debated in the other place, in Wales many of the MMOs functions have been taken directly into the Welsh Assembly Government, as was their wish. However, the MMO will need to integrate fully. If there is a fundamental breakdown beyond the powers that already exist in the Bill, there is, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, recourse to the powers of the Joint Ministerial Committee, and so on.
The clause makes it clear that only one MPS can exist at any time; that is the good way forward on this issue. Therefore, when we introduce a new MPS it will replace the previous one, thus avoiding the possibility of multiple, potentially conflicting statements.
The hon. Member for St. Ives is absolutely right to say that we want to move forward togetherthat is the big win within the Billbut there is the possibility for the Secretary of State to take action himself.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. What this debate highlights is the potential Achilles heel in clause 45 in cases where the policy authorities fail to achieve any kind of agreement. A migratory species that depends on the marine environment within the designation of one of the policy authorities could migrate into the waters of another. We can see what might happen if there is a failure to reach agreement where a potential conflict of interests exists. The clause could allow the Secretary of State to take the upper hand and dictate the terms to the devolved Administrations.
That is a matter of concern, whether the emphasis is on allowing or enabling certain economic activities that may have a detrimental impact on the waters and marine habitats of a devolved Administration, or on operating in a different manner and therefore perhaps damaging the economic prospects of a devolved Administration. I do not propose any amendments or a way forward, but the Minister might like to reflect on this issue. The fine minds and creative brains behind the Bill and those who have been engaged in the associated discussions may come up with some further thinking on this issue; nevertheless, it is an Achilles heel. Thank you, Mr. Gale for allowing me to raise it, as it remains unresolved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Preparation of an MPS or of amendments of an MPS

Ann McKechin: I beg to move amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 239, line 12, at end insert
(including the carrying out of the sustainability appraisal under paragraph 7).

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure consistency with paragraph 6(2)(a) of Schedule 6, which contains similar requirements for the statement of public participation (SPP) in respect of marine plans and states that the SPP timetable must include time for the carrying out of a sustainability appraisal.
Following the widely welcomed concession given on Report in the other place to place in the Bill a requirement to carry out a sustainability appraisal of the marine policy statement, this minor and technical amendment makes it clear that the timetable set out in the statement of public participation for an MPS should also include time to carry out the appraisal of sustainability alongside the preparation of the consultation draft. This brings paragraph 5(2) of schedule 5 in line with the equivalent paragraph in schedule 6 in relation to the SPP marine plans. I hope the Committee will support the minor addition.

Richard Benyon: I support the change. It is to the advantage of the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: I seek clarification about the status of the amendment in respect of devolved Administrations. Have devolved Administrations already discussed the amendment and how it affects the Bill? If not, and if my hon. Friend were minded to have such discussions and, as a result of them, decided that other amendments to the schedule might be tabled, would she think that a wise course of action?

Ann McKechin: I assure my hon. Friend that we have discussed this issue with the devolved Administrations and reached agreement about it. His other comments are not relevant to the schedule. I do not propose to enter into such a general and hypothetical debate.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Marine plans for marine plan areas

Ann McKechin: I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 51, page 29, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert
(2) Where an MPS governs marine planning for a marine planning region, the marine plan authority for the region must seek to ensure that every part of the region is within an area for which a marine plan is in effect..

The effect of this amendment would be to revise subsection (2) to make it clearer that each marine plan authority must seek to ensure that one or more marine plans are in effect which, between them, cover the whole of the authoritys region.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 31, in clause 51, page 29, line 36, at end insert
(2A) Sub-regions of a marine plan area may be defined at any time..
Amendment 32, in clause 51, page 30, line 4, at end insert
(d) has regard to all other plans and strategies that relate to the adjacent land area..

Ann McKechin: The Government amendment is a minor technical amendment that will ensure that the requirement placed on the marine plan authorities by the other place to seek to plan for all areas works as intended. Lobby groups are concerned that we maintain that provision in the Bill. I am pleased to report that having listened to the views that they and other interested parties expressed in the other place, we and the devolved Administrations have concluded that we fully support the principle behind the amendment. I have tabled this minor amendment to slightly redraft and clarify the original provision without changing its intended effect, and I hope that the Committee supports it.

Andrew George: My two amendments are probing, primarily to pursue a theme that applies throughout the Bill. That theme is the extent to which Government quangos, whether they are the MMO or other Government agencies, can determine the activities within any local authority or sub-regional area without sufficient or adequate consultation with the terrestrial local authority in the coastal area concerned. The purpose of the two amendmentsparticularly amendment 32is to ensure that the Government have cognisance of the existence of local authorities and that those authorities have local strategic plans that apply to the coastal areas. Each local authority on the coast establishes policies that have, or seek to have, an impact on the local economy, whether in the furtherance of tourism and the holiday trade, in the furtherance of the maintenance of local industries, such as fishing, diving or marine exploration, or in the furtherance of other activities that relate to either a local industry or tourism. What happens beyond the control of the local authority has an impact on the local authority itself.
The purpose of the amendments is simply to raise issues that I hope the Minister is prepared to reflect on. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I am interested in the Ministers response, particularly regarding the broader theme of seeking to ensure that democratically elected local authorities in particular, which have a clear interest in the future of the marine resource on their coastline, have a say in decision taking under the clause.

Richard Benyon: Amendment 24 is a welcome redrafting of an Opposition amendment tabled in the other place, creating a requirement to seek to ensure plan coverage throughout the United Kingdom waters, where a marine plan statement is in effect. I am pleased to support the amendment.
I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, because they have been backed by a number of organisations that have spoken to me as well, particularly the British Marine Federation. That body argues that there is a need for an integrated relationship between marine and land use planning in order to reduce the loss of land sites that are important for access or boating facilitiesfor example, recreational harbours or slipways and associated parking and boat storage. This is, therefore, a good probing amendment.

Ann McKechin: I thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury. I understand that amendments 31 and 32 replicate an amendment tabled by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Greaves in Committee in the other place, but as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham explained at the time, there is no need for specific provision in the Bill enabling the creation of sub-regional marine plans or marine plan areas. We entirely agree that planning authorities must be able to plan in the most appropriate way for any given area. Clause 51 already enables the marine plan authority to divide its marine planning region into marine plan areas however it sees fit. Those plans, however, are not set in stone, so the authority may prepare new plans at any time, either to divide the region differently or even to prepare additional plans for smaller areas within existing marine plan areas.
Amendment 32 would place within the definition of a marine plan the requirement that it must have regard to all other plans and strategies on the coast. Hon. Members will be aware that paragraph 9(2)(h) of schedule 6 already contains a requirement that marine plan authorities, when preparing a marine pan, must have regard to
any plan...prepared by a public or local authority in connection with the management or use of the sea or the coast, or of marine or coastal resources.
That will include local development plans, shoreline management plans, river basin management plans and, when prepared by a local authority, estuary management plans. I believe that that provision is clearer than the one set out in the amendment, which does not limit the other plans or strategies to which the marine plan must have regard to those with some relevance to the marine environment.

Hugo Swire: I declare an interest as a member of the governing council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I wonder whether the RNLI has been consulted in any of that.

Ann McKechin: That obviously relates to plans that are to come in the future, but we certainly envisage that there should be the widest possible consultation in any planning structure, and in the Bill we have made it clear that we do not seek to limit the consultations that are to be held and want to ensure that, when we devise marine plans and marine plan strategies, there is the widest possible public consultation. Clearly, the RNLI will be a relevant body in many cases.
Amendment 32 would place an unnecessary additional burden on the resources available to marine plan authorities. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of schedule 6 goes beyond the requirement set out in paragraph (9)(2)(h) to have regard to other terrestrial plans and strategies by requiring the marine plan authorities to
take all reasonable steps to secure that the plan is compatible with
plans developed as part of the terrestrial planning system. Clearly, that goes beyond a requirement merely to have regard to such plans. Provisions in clause 62 will enable a marine plan to be challenged before the courts if a marine plan authority failed to comply with that compatibility requirement or to have regard to the other plans mentioned in paragraph (9)(2)(h) of schedule 6.
I will take this opportunity to reassure members of the Committee that the integration of marine and terrestrial planning at the coast has been of fundamental importance to the development of our proposals from the very beginning. The land and sea, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has pointed out, are inextricably linked. Many actions on the land have an impact on the sea and vice versa. For that reason, it is important that the planning and management of both areas is as integrated as possible, with both systems working effectively together to enable seamless and holistic management of the area. To that end, we have worked extensively with the Local Government Associations coastal issues special interest group, the Royal Town Planning Institute and numerous key stakeholders to understand how best to enable the integration of marine planning with what happens on land and to identify the most appropriate mechanism to involve local authorities in that process.
Local authorities already lead in the planning and management of the terrestrial components of the coast and in the development of the previously mentioned local development plans and shoreline management plans, and invariably they are instrumental in the partnership development of estuary management plans. Local authorities contain a wealth of specialised and knowledgeable skills and expertise, which the MMO will need fully to incorporate, utilise and build on throughout its marine planning process and beyond into the majority of its functions. Importantly, local authorities also represent the interests of their communities and implement the will of the locally and democratically elected representatives. Therefore, I assure hon. Members that full local authority involvement in the marine planning process will be key to the successful implementation of marine planning from the early stages of development through to implementation, monitoring and review. The provisions within the Bill will support and encourage the integration of planning systems at the coast and will go further than is proposed in amendment 32.
Amendment 31 is not necessary, too, as the result that it seeks is already achievable under the current drafting and could therefore cast doubt on how existing provisions should be interpreted. In light of those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments, as they indicated that they would.

Roger Gale: Order. There is no need to withdraw them, as they have not been moved.

Andrew George: Thank you for reminding me that I have not moved my amendment, Mr. Gale. My intention was to probe this issue, which we might come back to on Report. I do not know what I need to do next, under the rules, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Gale. Must I move the amendments to entitle myself to seek to do something on Report?

Roger Gale: It is worth clarifying the position for the benefit of all members of the Committee, one or two of whom have indicated to me that their knowledge of procedure is a little rusty. That probably goes for the Chair as well. We move only the lead amendment, and it is open to any other Member to seek to move any other amendment that is grouped with the lead amendment, but the Chair requires notice and will then decide whether to take that. Any amendment that is moved in Committee is unlikely to be selected for debate on Report, so the fundamental principle is that if you wish to come back to something, you should not push it in Committee and should then take a further look at it on Report. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Andrew George: I am very grateful to you for that explanation, Mr. Gale. Perhaps by accident, I have managed to pursue the right strategy on this occasion. Of course, I do not wish to move the amendments because, having listened to the Ministers response, I might like to come back to the issue on Report.
A theme that runs through the Bill is that we are quango-ising decision taking with regard to the intertidal zone and the marine resource. I am troubled by the issue of democratic accountability for decisions that are taken in areas reasonably adjacent to the coastline in relation to what the Minister has referred to as the seamless provision in the Bill regarding what one might argue is the intertidal zone itself. I remain unconvinced that the Government have quite got the balance right.
The Minister said that amendment 32 would place an unreasonable burden on resourcesI think that that was the terminology that she usedbut democracy places a burden on resources. That is the nature of democracy, as we know from the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the House of Commons and ensuring that we have a democratically accountable body to take decisions. Equally, the terrestrial authoritiesthe local authoritieshave a clear interest in future development on the coastline and in maintaining the integrity of local development plans and the frameworks in which they operate, and the Bill should take cognisance of that.
Finally, by failing to acknowledge further the role and importance of locally democratically elected local authorities, the Bill appears to contradict a number of the Governments other stated intentions and aims to ensure that there is local democracy as set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Ann McKechin: I assure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee that we fully intend to involve the local community and local authorities, as well as business people and other people with an interest in the marine environment, in the preparation of each marine plan. The proposal will require a full public consultation on the draft plan that is created. There will be no lack of engagement. We are very clear that we want a rigorous consultation process and for the MMO to have full regard to it when preparing its final plan. As I said earlier, that is why we believe that local authorities are very important. We believe that local authorities are a key partner not only in the consultation process, but in the actual implementation of the plan that follows it.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention. However, that, of course, does not preclude the conclusion of that consultation and consideration ignoring and overruling the interests of the local authority. On behalf of those local authorities with an interest in the coast and in the intertidal zone in particular, that is the concern that I want to articulate to the Minister. While the processes described in the Bill would allow the marine authorities to go through the motions, the local authorities could be ignored in that process. Having said that, I have had the opportunity to air the issue. The lack of democratic accountability, in some respects, is a theme that runs through the Bill. We may well come back to the issue, if not later in Committee then on Report.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Licences

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 71, page 48, line 30, at end insert
(1A) This decision shall be made within 16 weeks of the application..
Assessments must be considered and a decision reached within three months. There is a requirement that onshore planning applications are considered within 16 weeks.
Subsection (1) outlines the conditions for granting licences. Our amendment requires that assessments must be considered and a decision reached within 16 weeks. As the Bill stands, there is no time limit on the consideration of marine licence applications. Without committing marine licensing authorities to a certain time scaleI am happy to say at this stage that I am relatively flexible on what that time scale should bewe are leaving the system open to massive backlogs and delays. Considering the potential lists of activities that will require a licence, it is important that we do not open up small businesses, in particular, to a potential loss of earnings through the lack of a licensing time scale.
The amendment also considers the renewable energy industry. Time is of the essence for marine developers. They may be funded by venture capital, and delays cost money. Unless we insist on some sort of defined time scale, it is conceivable that important developments that will play a great part in dealing with our renewable energy commitments will be affected.

Roger Williams: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentlemans amendment to put a time limit on dealing with licence applications. The explanatory statement mentions onshore planning applications, but does the same requirement apply to onshore licence applications? There is a slight difference between planning applications and licence applications.

Richard Benyon: I am seeking to develop a degree of consistency. I am not entirely certain what the requirements are on the whole range of onshore licensing, but we certainly have a well developed and accepted system of time limits in relation to planning. I do not see why we should not impose that on marine licence applications. Other countries do that as well.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is making a point with which I have some sympathy. There also seems to be nothing in the clause about an appeals process. Given that, as my hon. Friend has said, many of the applications will be funded by the private sector and that time costs money, should the Bill not also contain something about an appeals process if, for whatever reason, the initial application is refused?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this may be an opportunity to tease out of the Minister whether we can expand the amendment to include that sort of requirement. Other countries seem to manage in terms of marine management licensing. I was interested to read that South Africa has a legal framework that requires environmental impact assessments to be considered and a decision reached within three months. I therefore hope that the Minister will look favourably on imposing some sort of time limit.

Roger Gale: Before we go down that road, may I draw hon. Members attention to clause 73, which may cover part of the issue that has just been raised? I do not want to have the debate twice; if you have it now, that is fine by me.

Roger Williams: I have a certain amount of interest in the issue, and I have sympathy for the amendment. My interest arises out of onshore licensing by Government authorities and the way in which that must be done to a standard in order to ensure that the environment is safeguarded. Imposing a specific time limit should in some way reflect the complexity of the application, because my experience is that the conditions that are put on a licence must be both practicable and enforceable. On a large pipeline that went through Wales, for example, there should have been a statement at each stage of the crossing of various streams in relation to how adverse effects on those streams could be mitigated, but such statements were not included as conditions in the licence.
While I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newbury, certain minor applications should be dealt with on a shorter time scale than larger ones, which needs to be reflected in the scale and complexity of the application. That would help in our future deliberations, because we will later discuss clauses on enforcement. Does the licensing authority have the necessary capacity to ensure that it can enforce the conditions? It is one thing to put a condition on a licence, but it is another to enforce it when a rather large organisation that is pushing ahead with a development has more of an eye on completing that development than on complying with the conditions.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a good issue, and I look forward to the Ministers response, but the issue involves an option of proportionality that depends upon the size and complexity of the applications.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me say first that we agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. In fact, one criticism of the current licensing system is that applicants are uncertain about when their applications for a licence will be determined, and we are certainly looking to improve that in the Bill. To pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, however, an arbitrary time limit in the Bill is not the way to proceed, and I will explain why in a moment. None the less, I think that we can do something about the issue.
As has been said, the activities and developments that the marine licensing regime has to encompass are incredibly varied in scale and nature. They include everything from jetties built at the bottom of peoples gardens to pilot offshore energy schemes, aggregate dredging, harbour developments, laying submarine cables and pipelines, and the creation of artificial reefs, which is something that we are hearing more about.
The varied nature of such projects is matched only by their size and complexity and sometimes by the controversy over what they involve, which can go from the insertion of a few piles to the construction of a huge marina. Projects also take place in a wide variety of environments, which can be miles out to sea, in intertidal areas, in marine conservation zones or in sites that are protected under European legislation.
For each application, the licensing authority will have regard to the need to protect the environment and human health and to prevent interference with other uses of the sea. It will also factor in marine plans, socio-economic issues and anything else that it considers relevant. All those factors will be unique to every application and will need to be given the due consideration that they deserve and which is required under law.

David Jones: I take the Ministers point, but do not similar considerations apply to onshore planning applications? Is it not the case that a sensible developer will understand that the statutory time limit for such planning applications frequently cannot be adhered to and will allow the determining authority more time? The difficulty here is that no time is stipulated, so it is not possible to have such a negotiation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is why I think that there is a way forward, although it does not necessarily involve including a time in the Bill. One drawback of putting something in the Bill is that the tendency might be to find the longest time limit to take account of the most complex projects in the most complex environments. We need an intelligent and flexible way forward that gives industry more certainty about the consideration of applications and that allows the proper analysis of the various factors in projects.
Several other issues arise at a practical level. Many applications received by the Marine and Fisheries Agency do not contain sufficient detail, supporting information or a full consideration of the facts. Having an arbitrary time in the Bill is therefore a difficulty.
In some instances, the licensing authority has to go back to the applicant to request further information. What do we do in those situations? Do we stop the clock? In other instances, the authority has to commission further evidence from scientific advisers such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. In the odd case, the evidence may be collectible only at certain times of the year, because of the seasonal nature of the environment.
What will happen if the time frame is missed? Should the licensing authority be obliged to grant the licence? If that is done, say, before evidence is gathered, we risk possible infraction of a number of European directives, which will require appropriate analysis. Those are tricky issues.
Such details should be decided in conjunction with the bodies that I have mentioned and put in the secondary legislation that governs the applications process. To that end, I am pleased to say that we will publish a consultation paper on 1 July that includes a suggestion for target time frames, and all Committee members will receive a copy of that paper. The licensing authority will come to an informed view about the nature of the application right at the front of the process and give the developer target time scales for the various stages of the process, recognising that different applications have different complexities.
The suggestion in the consultation is that we state at the outset what the time scale should be. We think that that is a way of building flexibility into the process in an intelligent and tailored way to give applicants the increased certainty that they are looking for, without being unrealistic about some of the complex demands in our marine environment.

David Jones: Will the Minister say what sanctions against failure to determine are in an applicants hands in such a case?

Huw Irranca-Davies: In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Devon, there is an appeals procedure in clause 73, which the Secretary of State is required to use, so that facility is there already.
Consultation is the correct way to get this right. There can be a full debate over the summer and we welcome contributions from all stakeholders. We will discuss the details in depth with industry, scientific advisers and other consultees, all of whom have important inputs and contributions to make.

Roger Williams: Under clause 73, which is titled Appeals against licensing decisions, the appeal power is against the decision, not against non-determination. The Minister might like to consider that.

Roger Gale: Order. I shall allow debate on clause 73, in so far as it is relevant to this clause, because the two are clearly intermingled. However, if the Minister is happy with this, that will be on the understanding that when we get to clause 73, we will not debate it again.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In that case, Mr. Gale, it might be worth my while to reflect on clause 73, which obliges all licensing authorities to establish appeals mechanisms against their licensing decisions. The appealable decisions are listed in clause 71(1), namely refusing to grant the licence or to grant it subject to conditions.
The reasons why the appeals mechanism is open only to applicants, not third parties, are twofold. First, clause 68 requires the licensing authority to publish notice of a marine application or to require the applicant to publish notice of it in a manner calculated to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be interested. The licensing authority is obliged under clause 69(3) to
have regard to...representations which it receives from any person having an interest in the outcome of the application.
Clause 70 allows the licensing authority to
cause an inquiry to be held,
for example when there are particularly controversial or complex cases. Therefore, there is sufficient opportunity during the application process for third parties to get their views factored into any decision.
Secondly, it is important that marine developments are not held up unnecessarily by a large number of appeals lodged by third parties who simply disagree with the licensing authoritys decision. Appeals can be costly in terms of time and resources, not only for the applicant, but also for the regulator. If we want this improved, expedited licensing system, we cannot afford for it be clogged up by handling appeal after appeal.
Clause 73(3) lists the types of provisions that will be made by order that will establish an appeals mechanism and the procedure that must be followed in conducting an appeal. We do not want to prescribe the procedural detail in the Bill as we consider the appeals mechanism to be integral to the marine licensing decision-making process, which is itself to be prescribed by regulation. We want to consider stakeholders and the public in that process, including what they think to be appropriate procedures, time scales and grounds for appeal.
The appellant body may be different in each devolved territory to that used for MMO licensing decisions. Enabling such detailed provisions to be made in subsequent regulations allows each Administration to tailor the process to complement and reflect its decision-making procedures. I can give assurances that the UK Government will enable appeals against MMO decisions to be heard by an independent body. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
On non-determination, as the licensing function is to be delegated to the MMO, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 100 to direct it, and there is also scope for judicial review. Therefore, there are opportunities to challenge the body for not delivering in the time scale.
The consultation will commence tomorrow. It is a good opportunity for industry, Committee members, stakeholders and the wider public to engage properly in the debate. The intention behind the debate is right. We want to give certainty and clarity through proper dialogue with stakeholders, including industry. The secondary legislation will reflect the outcome of those discussions and I will welcome Committee members views on the subject. With this reassurance, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George: With regard to clauses 71 and 73, I seek reassurances about when a licensing activity clearly impinges on the coast itself and the local authority. I am concerned that some activitieswhether offshore wind development when cables are coming onshore, or activities at sea where service vessels need to be brought onshoreclearly require planning permission from a local authority as well. There must be some joint operation and consultation between the coastal authority and the MMO when licensing the activity. It concerns me that there appears to be no provision for that, and nor has the co-ordination of the licensing and the appeals process been envisaged.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 68, which deals with notice of applications and those bodies and persons that need to be consulted in the process. There is no way in which local authorities or othersthose in not only the marine environment, but the adjoining terrestrial environmentcould not be engaged, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, when applications are relevant to them, such as pipeline or grid connectors.
With that reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that we are sympathetic to what he says. We are bringing forward the consultation tomorrow to allow stakeholders to get engaged and to give some certainty about time frames. I hope he will feel assured enough to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the Ministers clarification. As he rightly points out, there is a wide variety of applications in the marine environment but, as hon. Members have said, there is also a wide variety of applications on landeverything from a loft extension to a nuclear power station. We have methods that allow a time limit in such circumstances.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for reminding me about clause 73. It was in my subconscious mind and you brought it to my conscious mind. I notice that there is no reference in that clause to a time limit on appeals. That is a very important point. Given that the Minister has announced a consultation, it would be wrong to press the amendment at this stage, but I hope to return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Exemptions for certain dredging etc activities

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 75, page 51, line 11, at end insert or
(c) that the activity is maintenance dredging..

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, in clause 75, page 51, line 24, at end add
maintenance dredging means the removal of accumulated sediments from harbour channels and berths undertaken on behalf of or by harbour authorities, marinas, yacht clubs and port facilities to ensure a safe depth of water for navigational purposes and the removal of sediment to restore adequate flow of water to mitigate risk of flooding or protect a sensitive habitat..

Richard Benyon: Clause 75(2) lists the conditions under which a marine licence is not needed for dredging or spoil disposal:
that the activity is undertaken by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and...that the activity is authorised by, and carried out in accordance with, any legislation falling within subsection (3).
We wish to insert a new condition:
that the activity is maintenance dredging.
The amendment would ensure that low-risk maintenance dredging was exempted from the licensing system. The explanatory notes to the draft Marine Bill stated that low-risk dredging activities, such as maintenance dredging, would become exempt under the new Bill. However, there is no specific commitment to that in this Bill, as amended in the other place. The Government have committed to consult on exempting maintenance dredging beyond the context of activities carried out by, or on behalf of, harbour authorities, thus ignoring the vital maintenance dredging carried out by marina and port operators. Harbour authorities are not always best placed to carry out maintenance dredging and offering them a specific licensing exemption appears to give them an unfair advantage in a competitive market. For example, many harbour authorities have recreational moorings as a source of income. The harbour authority would be exempt from obtaining a maintenance dredging licence, but a marina in that harbour would be required to gain the appropriate licence, which would force it to raise mooring fees to cover the cost.
Exempting all forms of maintenance dredging would reduce costly bureaucracy at a local level and ensure a level playing field for coastal communities. Maintenance dredging does not involve the removal of river or sea beds, but the removal of accumulated sediment blocking navigation channels, and any environmental impact is therefore minimal. Amendment 12 would add a definition of maintenance dredging to the list of definitions in subsection (4)(a).

Andrew George: I wish to make a few remarks about clause 75 and the amendments. Although I have some sympathy with the purpose and sentiments behind the amendments, my experience of working with coastal local authorities when dredging to maintain a safe and navigable channel is required is that one cannot undertake that work without considering the consequences for the wider hydrological system of tidal flows and other water courses that serve the estuary or the harbour that is being dredged for the safety of vessels using it. In such circumstances, as I have had the opportunity to look into them, it is appropriate to consult Trinity House, which has a range of important expertise, on navigable safety. Matters pertaining to Natural England also come into play, particularly if the estuary or harbour in question is a designated site of special scientific interest, or has another designation because the environment must be protected or considered.
At the level of the local authorities that, in many instances, provide the required dredging licences, there is the question of what happens to the dredged material. It is important to consider where, for example, sand or sediment that is excavated on to a dredging barge is deposited. It might be placed temporarily on land and then deposited elsewhere within the hydrological system to replace sand that will be lost from another area in the vicinity of the area being dredged. The consequences of dredging one area has a knock-on effect, particularly in a sandy environment such as on the dunesthe towans, as we know themand sometimes in areas a number of miles away.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to his home town and the Hayle estuary, which has to be dredged regularly, thereby affecting the towns around it. Is he saying that hoops would have to be gone through every time the Hayle estuary was dredged? If the marina development there ever goes ahead, it will no doubt need to be dredged more than it is at the moment.

Andrew George: Hayle harbour authority is responsible for maintaining a safe, navigable channel for harbour users, but that is not the only instance in which dredging takes place for such a purpose. A time-limited licence applies. A licence is not needed every time a boat goes out to dredge the channel, but it applies for a period during which dredging activity may take place. That dredging clearly has an impact on the wider marine environment, not just on the area being dredged.
It is important that the Minister be aware that allowing a laissez-faire approach in some harbours and estuaries would mean that, where the harbour authority responsible for maintaining the safe, navigable channel goes ahead with its dredging activities without consideration of the consequences in the area around it, that would result in denuding sand and sediment from other areas, because it would be dredging those things from its own channel. That would also have knock-on consequences for the marine wildlife. In some circumstancesfor example, when dredging a harbour or estuary that may have historical and archaeological remains in itheritage bodies may need to be consulted as well.
Although I understand the purposes of the amendment, we need to press forward on this issue with some caution.

Ann McKechin: I thank the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives for raising points that are live and important for a number of operators. There has been some uncertainty on the part of industry about whether the new licensing system will place disproportionate burdens on operators that regularly carry out vital dredging activities, which is why it is seeking an exemption for maintenance dredging.
The noble Lords in the other place rightly sought assurances from the Government that any exemptions from the licensing regime would be made with regard to the need to protect the environment and human health, and prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea and other relevant factors. I may not be able to offer a general exemption for maintenance dredging today, but we are actively exploring the extent to which we can exempt low-risk dredging activities from the need for a marine licence.
We want to ensure that operators doing the necessary work of keeping navigational channels clear of silt and other debris can continue to do so without unnecessary regulatory burden, but still with adequate regard to the impact of their activities. Under the Bill, all forms of maintenance dredging will become licensable for the first time. However, the Bill is about applying regulatory controls proportionately to the risk and impact of the marine activity on the environment and human health, and on other uses of the sea.
In many cases, maintenance dredging has gone on in the same place for years without discernible impact, and we do not want unnecessarily to burden industry in those instances. It is right that maintenance dredging carried out by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and in accordance with a local Act or harbour order, should not have to be licensed under the Bill. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake activities in accordance with the relevant environmental obligations, and they are able to carry out such activities without the need for consent under the current regime.
However, we want to ensure that all other operators who are not subject to those statutory duties carry out maintenance dredging and other activities safely and with sufficient regard to the environment and other risks. We want to ensure that a licensing authority has the information it needs to make sound and sustainable decisions on the licence applications it receives, including determining whether activities being undertaken in its areawhether they are licensed or exemptare likely to have a cumulative impact.
Therefore, we are looking to use the exemptions order-making power in clause 74 to find a middle groundan appropriate mechanism that will keep the regulatory burden to a minimum, while maintaining proper and appropriate standards of environmental protection, which was the concern raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Those standards include controls to ensure that activities will not compromise the achievement of other environmental objectives, such as those under the water framework directive. The exemptions order will come into force at the same time as the new licensing regime.
However, the licensing regime is not just about excluding or including activities. The Bill provides flexibility so that, if we choose to exempt an activity, we can place conditions on the carrying out of that activity that must be satisfied before it can be considered exempt. For example, we may want to look at whether we can exempt maintenance dredging carried out using lower-impact techniques such as hydrodynamic dredging, which involves the use of water jets to move sediment along the sea bed.
We will be looking to make use of the Bills flexibility and we will explore whether mechanisms such as registration or authorisation are appropriate to use where we choose to exempt low-risk activities, so that a licensing authority can retain sufficient overview of the activities being carried out in its area.
As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly pointed out, we are just about to launch a public consultation on our approach to those exemptions, including proposals for potentially low-risk activities such as maintenance dredging, which may be appropriate for exemption from the need for a marine licence. We are also looking to find the best ways of regulating those low-risk activities, whether through a form of licence or through a general or conditional exemption. Any decisions will be made in light of the responses to that consultation, further discussion and sound evidence.

Andrew George: In the definition of what may or may not be considered dredging, the Minister referred to the use of water jets as a means of simply moving sediment on. As far as the definition of dredging is concerned for the purposes of the Bill itself, am I therefore right in understanding that sluicing might also be considered dredging, or have I misunderstood that?

Ann McKechin: Yes, it would. I have been advised that, under the maintenance dredging protocol for England, that would be the case.

Andrew George: Would sluicing be considered dredging?

Ann McKechin: Sluicing would be, yes.
We also have to pay regard to our European environmental obligations when we are considering licensing, as well as the other relevant international conventions to which the UK is a signatory. I welcome the participation of people and organisations in the consultation when it is launched; it will be a great opportunity to have an input into the Governments policy.
I now turn to amendment 12. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, maintenance dredging is not a legally defined term. Some have sought to define it for the purposes of implementing various measures or controls, and I am aware that there are two such definitions. One is in the maintenance dredging protocol for England, which is an informal industry code of practice, and the other is used by the Marine and Fisheries Agency in the course of its existing consenting functions. The agency defines maintenance dredging as:
Material (generally of an unconsolidated nature) arising:
from an area where the level of the seabed to be achieved by the dredging proposed is not lower (relative to Ordnance Datum), than it has been at any time during the preceding 10 years, or from an area for which there is evidence that dredging has previously been undertaken to that level (or lower) during that period.
It will not surprise hon. Members that that definition is slightly different from the one used in the maintenance dredging protocol.
If a licensing authority considers it appropriate to exempt maintenance dredging generally or conditionallyI have said that the Governments intend to use exemption orders made under the power in clause 4 to do thatwe will of course be looking to define the activity more precisely. In doing so, we may want to determine more exactly who should and should not be allowed to carry out maintenance dredging operations without a licence. That may or may not be the approach taken.
The current exemption in clause 74 allows dredging and associated deposits to be carried out on behalf of harbour authorities in accordance with the local legislation or harbour order. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake these activities. The Bill is about regulating proportionately and in accordance with the risks that each activity poses. It would be a backward step if we gave operators who have no statutory duties regarding environmental protection a carte blanche to carry out those dredging activities without any kind of environmental control.
Some dredging disposals bound for sea disposal may contain contaminated sediment, and it is vital that proper environmental assessments be undertaken and adequate measures subsequently taken to prevent harm to the environment and human health, or to prevent interference with other users of the seaa point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We will need to consult thoroughly and take all scientific evidence into account before making an exemption order. If maintenance dredging is thought to pose a low risk, I hope we can come to some consensus on how to define it. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good point about the potential impact on the hydrology of the area in question, but what we are talking about here is often small-scale dredging operations, which are vital for local businesses. He made a point about spoil disposal, where it is done and how it relates to other areas. Again, that is important, but I urge the Committee not to legislate on the basis of the most indolent and stupid managers of marinas or similar environments. Otherwise, we will go down a regulatory path that could limit the rights of sea anglers to fish in certain areas. I know how that would excite certain members of the Committee. One or two sea anglers might do some stupid things, but 1.3 million of them do not.
We must be careful how we regulate. We also have to bear in mind the costs for small marinas and other leisure activities. These are not large income-yielding businesses. These are often highly marginal and if we over-regulate, it could impose a burden that could make some of them unviable. With this Bill we should be encouraging leisure and tourism activities. We have to think of the path of least resistance when it comes to regulation such as this. To impose levels of bureaucracy on very small-scale operations would be a mistake.
The Ministers comments are well made. Here we are again in a slight state of flux as the Government go out to consultation. Clearly, it would be the wrong time to press the amendment. She talked about the need for proportionality: that is a key word. As for the definition of maintenance dredging, I urge her to look at the definition we have provided, rather than the current opaque one, which seems to entail looking at more than 10 years of data on the sediment in the estuarial environment. That seems an extremely complex way of defining maintenance dredging. With those thoughts in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 76 to 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 98 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1 pm

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.